Aspect Ratios by Joe Cornish – Pt 2

December 22, 2010 • Joe Cornish

In the first part of this discussion on aspect ratios I genuinely attempted to question the assumptions we all hold about aspect ratio, including the fact that four sides to our working ground is an inevitable paradigm. The responses received (Thanks Dav, Steve and Adam) helped me to accept that such scrutiny is rhetorical at best, and whistling in the wind at worst! In short, therefore, the rest of my investigation will concentrate on the four-sided figure.

What I would like to do with this second part is look at the main camera types that we all use, and how we respond to the proportions of aspect ratio. I will also speculate on the nature of the cameras with which they were made and how this influences the results. Aspect ratio must ultimately be seen hand in hand with the cameras that were designed to produce them. For in such a technologically-driven field as photography, the camera itself plays a large part in determining the current state of the art.

This text is available for purchase but you need to login or register first

My final instalment will look into the extreme aspect ratios, which we collectively describe as panoramic.

In Editorial, Needs Paid Subscription

21 Responses

  1. Tim Smalley

    Joe,

    I’ve really enjoyed reading this series of articles – they’ve been both thought-provoking and packed full of information – so thank you for taking the time to put these together, and I eagerly await the third part. What’s interesting is that, while on a private workshop with Tim & Dav back in November, we spent some time talking about aspect ratios and my own preference for shooting 4×5 images on my 5D Mark II.

    I prefer to ‘see’ the world vertically, but found the 24x36mm sensor always left me with dead space – either at the top or bottom of the frame. When I compose horizontal images, the temptation is to opt for a wide angle lens with a bold foreground (that has no relation to the rest of the picture) because that allows you to fill the frame with the view. I didn’t find the 3×2 format too inhibitive in the landscape format, but the more I look back at pictures made in that format, the more I dislike a lot of them – I’m finding myself making more horizontal 3×1 panoramas nowadays, as they seem to solve the aspect ratio issues and, hopefully get me away from the wide-angle cliché and into making more considered compositions.

    When I first got my current camera, I didn’t like the focusing screen that came with the camera and ended up buying an EG-D focusing screen, which includes a 2×4 grid. At the time, I didn’t realise that the outer lines of this focusing screen (there’s a picture here: http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-focusing-screen-eg-d-grid-precision-matte/p1028681) are almost perfect ‘crop lines’ for composing 4×5 images on the 2×3 sensor. I didn’t realise this until after I’d got back from my day out with Tim & Dav, though, but it seems my choice of focusing screen had sub-consciously been aiding me in 4×5 compositions.

    I now use these lines, in conjunction with Live View, to accurately compose 4×5 photos on my camera – I know exactly where the crop lines will fall at the time of exposure, and rarely move far from them in post processing. The reason I use Live View as a second compositional aid is because it’s a 100 per cent coverage of the frame (although only when you’re viewing the whole frame – the 5x and 10x zooms don’t actually go all the way to the edges) and the viewfinder is only 98 per cent coverage. The top and bottom edges are composed accurately in the viewfinder, while the left and right edges are roughly composed at the same time. I then make sure there are no distractions around the left/right edges of the frame in Live View before moving onto focusing.

    I’d love to one-day be able to afford a view camera, but it would be a serious investment as I would need to keep a DSLR system of some kind running for the events and occasional wedding photography I do on the side. Instead of making that investment, I decided to try using a tilt-shift lens a couple of years ago. After hiring one for a weekend and thoroughly enjoying the extra flexibility it gave me, I went out and bought a 24mm TS-E lens – I’m at the point now where the majority of my landscape photography could be fulfilled using the focal lengths of Canon’s three tilt-shift lenses (I know there are four but the 17mm is, in my opinion, too wide for landscape photography and, if you look at most of the photography magazines on newsstands, it’s also something of a cliché).

    Thanks once again for both yours and Tim’s contributions to this excellent community – I hope it continues to grow at a rate that allows further investment in content.

    Tim

    On December 23, 2010 at 8:23 am • Reply
    • Joe Cornish

      Tim,

      Thanks for your highly positive response.

      The Canon (and now Nikon) TSE lenses do create an ad hoc digital view camera. There is a very interesting article about this concept by Richard Sexton, on Luminous Landscape. He explains how Live View has really made the movements on these remarkable lenses practical and useable in a way that they simply were not with the traditional slr viewfinder alone.

      I cannot help noting, however, that the cost of a Canon 5D Mk11 and the three TSE lenses you mention (£5-6000?) would be enough to equip you with a very capable view camera system with at least as many lenses! And more if you purchased second hand. Admittedly, there would be the cost of the film, and eventually scanning. I am not proselytising for 5×4 especially. But in my experience most people who adopt 5×4 gain, artistically, from the experience. And of course there’s nothing to stop you using both systems. Richard Sexton does, so does Tim, so do I, and a host of other photographers. I am sorry to inform you that the way you describe your approach has all the characteristics of a ‘latent’ large format photographer; and thus, gazing into my crystal ball, I foresee further camera purchases ahead!

      On December 23, 2010 at 7:07 pm • Reply
      • Tim Smalley

        Hey Joe,

        You’re more than welcome and thank you for getting back to me.

        I don’t think I would have enjoyed using a tilt-shift lens without Live View, as focusing through the viewfinder is difficult. I can get close, but don’t feel I can achieve perfect focus through it.

        I’ve certainly thought about costing up a large format investment a few times, but I’ve not got that far yet. The point you make about buying the other two TS-E lenses is interesting too. Yes, it’s another £2,000 or so which, quite rightly, could be put into a large format fund.

        It’s an area of photography that definitely interests – nay, fascinates – me and one that I’d love to get to grips with at some point. Whether that leads to me buying LF gear… well, it most likely will if I enjoy it sufficiently and can feel confident using the camera… oh, and I can get it past the better half!

        On December 23, 2010 at 8:10 pm • Reply
  2. Jason Theaker

    Wow such an in-depth text about something so seemingly simple. The thing that strikes me with aspect ratio is the way that individual photographers feel so passionate about defending their preferred one. I wonder if this is born out of the preferred equipment, but also may be reflected in their peer group’s expectations, or even backed up by the desire to get it right in camera. I’m not sure and wound want to upset everybody here by making inflammatory statements… but I keep coming back to your refreshing statement that “we probably should use aspect ratio more flexibly and hopefully, more creatively.”… I fully agree with you here. It is my view that towards the more creative end of the landscape photography spectrum rules are there to be twisted… after all the camera (which ever you choose to use) is a mere tool that assists in the creative process…

    On a side note here, I find it interesting that Tim decided to crop my image for the article about “Dealing with Cold Weather” (Something So Paradoxical) shows the power of the preferred aspect ratio, conscious or subconscious I wonder Tim? (o:

    On December 23, 2010 at 8:55 am • Reply
    • Tim Parkin

      I didn’t crop it intentionally – but then again it’s my server so it could have decided by itself ;-)

      On December 23, 2010 at 10:19 am • Reply
    • Joe Cornish

      Jason,

      Thanks for that. Not inflammatory at all, I actually think it is important to deliberately change our parameters from time to time, especially if we have a sense that we may be repeating ourselves.

      And of course, sometimes a subject just lends itself to a more extreme treatment than the default aspect ratio of our camera. To stick to the no-cropping rule slavishly when the picture can be improved by cropping (and the meaning can often be changed and enhanced by doing so) makes no sense.

      I’ll tackle this in a little more detail in the next instalment. Twisting the rules? Absolutely. Now perhaps that is the topic for another feature. If only I knew what the rules were…

      On December 23, 2010 at 7:16 pm • Reply
  4. Nigel Morton

    I’ve always thought that the 2:3 ratio of dslrs have been too tall for portrait orientated landscapes. Since Joe’s last article on this it’s become so irritating I’ve begun cropping into some of my old images that I previously thought were too tall, but acceptable.

    I’ve also started using live view on the back of my dslr more often, and have resorted fixing the aspect ratio of my camera rather crudely by using a bit of electrical tape across the LCD screen to help me compose images in a 4:3 ratio. This does unfortunately mean chopping off a large slice of each file when processing – a solution that does seem an awful waste of pixels.

    A 5d II has 5616 x 3744 pixels giving 21mp

    A 4:3 crop from a 5d II file equals 4980 x 3744 pixels giving a 18.6mp image

    That’s a loss of 2.4mp or about 11.5%

    If you are like me and shoot more than landscapes and can only really afford one camera system, then what is the ideal one to invest in?

    Given that a high end dslr weighs in at around two grand, plus another grand for each piece of glass, assuming you want three lenses, then you’ve just spent £5,000 on a system that can produce an 18mp 4:3 ratio raw file. What’s the cost of a micro 4:3 digital compact? £800 max….and you get 12mp files. Is the extra 6mp really worth at least another four thousand pounds? No way, but half of us will still be standing in line when the next 5d III or whatever comes out.

    On December 23, 2010 at 5:26 pm • Reply
    • Joe Cornish

      Nigel,

      The law of diminishing returns is probably illustrated more graphically in our industry than any other. As a user of a Phase One back I am acutely aware that I spent five or six times as much to get double(-ish) the resolution. Of course people will buy the 5D Mk111 whenever it comes out, and as with all these cameras, it ain’t just about the pixies (as my Aussie mate Richard calls them).

      As a matter of interest I just read the story of a picture that was made from 19 iPhone images, stitched together in camera (or should that be in-phone?) out in the field. Totally automated functionality the whole way. And the result is remarkable. But it was shot by a very experienced, highly skilled photographer.

      If print quality is a priority, more high quality pixels is desirable. But you can improvise your way around with a great many different devices these days. The opportunities to be really creative are greater than ever before.

      On December 23, 2010 at 7:28 pm • Reply
  5. Joe Rainbow

    A really interesting article Joe. I find the whole subject of ratios within Art/ Photography fascinating. I have an unhealthy leaning towards 4×5 vertical images for landscapes considering I shoot with a 5D MKII. I so wish I could view the image in that format when actually shooting. It encourages me to go Large format for that reason among others. I suppose ultimately, it is still just a shape within which to compose ‘things’. A successful artist should be able to work the composition to the format, whatever the ‘box’.
    Personally, I dislike cropping after taking an image, although I will do if I feel it improves the work. It is a question of breaking something that was instinctive for that moment, and a cropped image always seems so, at least in my view. I think looking at the great painters of the world gives us a more free approach to the subject, as their choice is usually made without the constraints of a ‘manufacturer’ and is therefore purely aesthetic. The spiritual paintings of Rothko, the epic landscapes of Casper David Friedrich or Turner, the abstract compositions of Howard Hodgkin or John Virtue. All are a different shape for a different purpose. I wold love to see an article, here or elsewhere, that looked specifically at that subject within the History of Art.
    Anyway, a highly engaging review of formats and food for photographic thought. Thanks,
    Joe.

    On December 27, 2010 at 10:42 pm • Reply
    • Joe Cornish

      Joe,

      Thank-you, and I am pleased to note your reference to painting. The painters you mention all have something to teach us, and painting is simply a fascinating influence, deliberate or sub-conscious on contemporary landscape photography. Composition, rendering of light and dark, colour hue and saturation all have to be dealt with in both photography and painting, but the outcome is arrived at through such different processes in each case. Certainly aspect ratio is determined in painting by various parameters, some of which are probably quite random and/or arbitrary. But clearly, once the working ground is started, the painter will make the work fit the space, and cropping afterwards is a pretty unlikely scenario I would imagine. I must talk to my painter friends to invite their thoughts on this. If I feel it is possible to create an interesting piece on this topic I will see if Tim is agreeable to making space for it!
      What I do think for sure is worth investigating is the different thought processes and philosophies that determine the way painting and photography is manifested. I am working on an exhibition to be shown at the Scarborough Museum later this year (October) with painter, Kane Cunningham. It is to be called Landscape Revisited and I am sure the process should give plenty of food for thought…

      On December 28, 2010 at 12:34 pm • Reply
  6. Douglas Griffin

    A terrific article Joe, and some very interesting comments too. Exactly what I hoped Landscape GB would be about. :-)

    Like some of those commenting above, I shoot using a full-frame DSLR (Canon 5D Mk II). I have never had any problem resisting the temptation to “rely on auto-iso, or to simply increase the iso to give a hand-holdable speed, then snap and walk away”. However, I am increasingly dissatisfied with the 2×3 format. Like many others, I will crop if I feel that an image is thereby improved but I find it very difficult to compose an image with a subsequent crop in mind. Some sort of electronic overlay in the LCD screen would be an ideal aid, but I don’t suppose it’ll be forthcoming from Canon. The EG-D screen that Tim Smalley mentions might be a reasonable solution. As pointed out by Nigel, cropping to 5×4 means throwing away pixels, but 18MP ought to still allow prints to be blown up to a reasonable size. Definitely a tactic to consider!
    (Incidentally, Joe – I think I am right in saying that you used a Nikon D700 a year or two ago – would be interested to hear whether you found yourself composing with a view to a subsequent crop in the digital darkroom?)

    5×4 is becoming a more attractive option all the time… Maybe a subject for a future article – I think that Tim’s website and blog contains a lot of useful information on this, but an article on the things that need to be considered when moving to medium format from DSLR might prove of interest to a great many readers!

    Doug.

    On December 28, 2010 at 6:15 pm • Reply
    • Joe Cornish

      Doug,

      I am sure your thoughts about the 2×3 aspect ratio, like Nigel’s and Tim’s, would be echoed by many. I do have a contact at Canon, and as I am trialling the 5d Mk11 myself at the moment the 5×4 format electronic overlay is an idea I will suggest to him. Since the vast majority of serious landscape photographers (those using dslrs anyway) choose this camera above all others, to offer such a facility would surely be a logical step. Perhaps it could even be made available as a firmware upgrade? Having used the original Nikon D3 for six months back in 2008 I know this can be done, as that camera had just such a facility. Ironically, the D3 really was not aimed at landscape photographers at all, being too big, unnecessarily fast and of modest resolution. But this was a great facility that really worked in a great camera.

      I am the owner of the D700, as you say, and this is still my ‘go-to’ camera for assignments, shooting in a documentary fashion. The D700 lacks the D3′s 5×4 overlay, and I find myself filling the frame of 2×3, if I can. Of course, sometimes I crop, but still only as a last resort. I don’t think I am clever enough to figure out other proportions without a visual aid. Actually, that isn’t true, but the fact is that I shoot the best I can with the aspect ratio of the camera. That is one of the reasons the camera’s aspect ratio really does matter! Re cropping, I am not too concerned about ‘throwing away’ pixels. Ultimately it is the picture itself that counts, and miracles can be achieved with careful processing, noise reduction etc.

      Finally, regarding a move from dslr to MF or LF, this is definitely a topic we will be covering in future issues. Firstly though we are planning an ultimate resolution shoot-out, from iPhone to P65+, something Tim has flagged up elsewhere in this or an earlier issue. While that is essentially a multi camera format resolution test, the compromises that each format dictates to the user will inevitably come up, and it may well, help clarify your thoughts regarding the ‘which format should I use?’ question.

      On December 28, 2010 at 7:44 pm • Reply
      • Douglas Griffin

        Joe,

        Thanks for your thoughts. :-)

        A firmware upgrade for the 5D Mark II would be perfect. And I Iook forward to the ultimate resolution shoot-out!

        Doug.

        On December 28, 2010 at 8:22 pm • Reply
  7. davidlangan

    Really interesting article (both parts) and it is something the DSLR generation should be thinking about. Even though I do compose specificaly to crop portrait orientation shots to 4×5 I often really like the 2×3 ratio for portrait shots. Probably got alot to do with its all I have ever shot with so I am very comfortable with using it. Wait till I have had a MF camera in my hand for a while to see if my mind changes. . . .

    dave

    On December 29, 2010 at 9:46 pm • Reply
  8. adamp

    This is an interesting topic indeed and it’s good to read the various comments. I wonder whether painters and photographers are, or perhaps feel, constrained by the availability of their chosen medium. I know little about painting and drawing, but I guess that the paper is available in various standard sizes, just as with film and photo paper. Having seen painters outside of the studio, they are clearly working on such standard paper sizes and composing within the edges. We as photographers mostly do the same – but really there is no reason why we should and cropping to suit the subject is surely perfectly acceptable. After all, when one selects an aspect ratio on a camera which has this facility, it is in fact a crop from the maximum pixels or film area available.

    There seems to be quite a trend here against the 2:3 ratio and I don’t really understand why. In my younger days (ahem…) when I only had a 35mm camera, 2:3 didn’t bother me at all and I was not aware of this being in any way an uncomfortably long or narrow frame. Indeed, I freely cropped on the enlarger easel as I wrote before, or even with slide masks. But I have gained a real liking for the 4:3 format, though here again this is perhaps as much a function of the pleasure of using a 645 camera and its large and bright viewfinder. What’s more, when used for vertical compositions the image is upside down  Having said that, I use both film sizes in almost equal amounts now and occasioanlly, for landscapes, I find difficulty switichng from 645 to 35mm, but almost never the other way round. For close-ups I invariably select the 35mm and have no problmes.

    Going back to my clubbing days (photo clubbing that is…) there was always a frisson of pleasure seeing the club walls adorned with rows of 20”x16” prints, at least I found the uniformity rather satisfying. Yet, at the same time the narrow crops (horizontal and vertical) and the squares always stood out and added something extra to the exhibition.

    I’d better stop waffling on, so my conclusion is let’s not worry about whether we crop or not, in-camera or later, but rather let’s compose to suit the key elements of the subject. If we can make them use up the whole frame, then all the better as it will save time while maximising the medium area used and hence quality for reproduction. The facility to use different aspect ratios, as on the LX3 and now LX5, is a bonus and should lead to more variety in our work.

    Happy New Year to all, Adam

    On December 31, 2010 at 2:04 pm • Reply
  9. Lofoten Summer – Sven Seebeck Photography linked to this.
    On January 5, 2011 at 5:07 am • Reply
  10. Bob-G

    I’m a bit late to the game here on LandscapeGB but this article was fascinating. I seem to have been coming to some of these conclusions/observations on my own of late. I am a big fan of the near/far composition in landscape photography and most often I do this in portrait format. I am increasingly finding that the 5:4 ratio makes for a more pleasing result over the sometimes visually disconcerting 2:3 ratio. Somehow there is often just too much real estate covered from top to bottom. My digital technical response has been to use tilt-shift lenses, multiple exposures and stitching to achieve higher resolution 5×4 format results. I’m having fun seeing how close I can push digital towards medium and large format results and, perhaps counter intuitively, I am still not tempted by the perhaps more affordable transition to LF or MF film.

    On February 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm • Reply
    • Joe Cornish

      Bob, from what I can see, great results can be achieved by using the technique you describe, certainly regarding image quality, or resolution. My only concern is the sheer difficult of visualising the finished image with a multi exposure approach. And there is also the changing light, and achieving a seamless stitch transition to consider as well. If you have mastered all of the above that is some achievement! Perhaps, as the price of MF digital comes down, as it has started to now with the launch of new Pentax and Mamiya cameras, you may not have to use this tactic forever.

      On February 20, 2011 at 9:35 pm • Reply
  11. perfectplanet

    Just a quick note to say, for those of you using a 5D mark II to shoot 5×4 images (as I do mostly), the Canon does actually already have an inbuilt grid overlay on Live View which can be used to easily compose 5×4 images.
    The option you need is called “Grid Display” in the “Live View/Movie func. set.” menu. Set it to Grid 2. This will overlay a grid of 6×4 squares onto Live View and you can then compose using 5×4 of the squares.

    Simon

    On May 16, 2011 at 11:52 am • Reply
    • Douglas Griffin

      Simon

      I’ve just noticed your comment after re-reading these 2 articles by Joe.
      Thank you so much for the tip – that’s fantastically useful. With this grid on-screen it should now be perfectly possible to accurately compose for the 4×5/5×4 crop ‘in-camera’.

      Doug.

      On July 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm • Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.